In Memoriam: Stephen T. Johns

Stephen T. Johns died yesterday heroically defending one of the most important sites in the world, the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D. C. He was gunned down in cold blood by a man unable to bear the presence of such a museum, one dedicated to proving the awful destructiveness of hate. Mr. Johns died protecting others, and if not for his actions and those of his colleagues, we can only imagine how many visitors to the museum might have died.

I urge everyone who reads this to learn the lesson that was enacted again yesterday, in minature. Hatred is a destructive force. It accomplishes nothing but killing. It deserves only enough attention to understand why it must be avoided. The important story is that of Stephen Johns, who gave his own life in order to save others. That is a legacy which is worthy of being remembered, and I urge all of you to keep Stephen Johns and his family in your thoughts and your prayers, and to remember his sacrifice.

Although what is important was how Mr. Johns, as an individual, acted yesterday, and although I know most of my readers understand this anyway, I do want to make one other point. Mr. Johns happened to be a black man. His murderer was white, someone who endorsed the absurd belief that that single fact, the colour of his skin, made him somehow superior. However, his own actions and those of Mr. Johns yesterday give the lie, once and for all, to that belief.

It is ironic this bigot proved exactly what he would have liked to disprove, but I think it is important to take note of this. A white man, convinced this fact alone made him superior, proved by his own actions he was inferior to the black man he confronted. Superiority is not conferred by skin colour, race, heritage, or anything other than what each of us, as individuals, chooses to do and how we choose to act. And the fact a self professed "genius" could overlook the way in which what he planned to do would demonstrate how very wrong he was illustrates, clearly, how little anyone really learns who chooses to blame all their frustrations on a scapegoat.

I'm very, very sorry Stephen Johns had to die proving that lesson, which most of us already understood, once again, but I'd like to think, if it had to happen anyway, he would be pleased to know his actions did affirm just how dreadful a lie racism and bigotry really are. And if even one person who reads this finally understands the reality of this important lesson for the first time, perhaps some small good can come out of such a great tragedy.

And, although I hardly dare hope so, if this incident, which so emphatically establishes just what pathetic losers all those people are who believe in any sort of racial supremacy, reverses the spread of hate groups through our society like cancer, I hope Stephen Johns will at least be remembered as the man whose heroism brought it about. Whatever the outcome, he deserved better. From now on, when I hear the phrase "only the good die young", the name of Stephen T. Johns will be added to the list of those who come to mind. May God bless you and may you rest in peace, Mr. Johns.

Annoyances In A Writer's Life

I'm still thinking about "time and attention", which is an important concept to get right. It would seem so simple. Just focus your attention, and spend your time, on those things that are most important. First, of course, you have to decide what is most important. That isn't very difficult for most of us, until you start to realise all the dimensions "important" takes on.

None of us wants to waste time being sick, but it is one of those things that are hard to avoid. That's just a little annoyance, but then there are the big issues. I want to be writing. Instead, I'm trying to keep my computer cooled down while I figure out what's wrong. Since I can't afford a new one right now, it becomes most important to keep the stupid thing from melting down so I can keep on writing.

It is running sluggishly, thanks to some bottleneck of processes at the CPU, and all these racing cycles have it on the verge of overheating any time I try to do much with it. Okay, I know enough about computers to solve this - or at least I thought I did. I cleaned out most of the apps that start up with Windows. I pruned my fonts folder to the lowest level it has ever reached on this machine (which ran fine with more fonts installed for a couple of years). Nothing.

I set up resource meters to see what was gobbling up all my resources. Nothing unusual there, no reason for the trouble. I'm pretty careful, but I downloaded a few more powerful malware scanners, which is where I really got stuck. There seems to be something quietly sitting in the background meddling with every process. Before you helpfully point out in the comments that this must be the malware I was looking for, my research has uncovered the thrilling fact that security software acts in many of the same ways as malware. It hides itself, refuses to identify itself, and makes itself abominably difficult to get rid of.

My particular "infection" is so murky, I have not yet been able to figure out whether it is true malware, or the security software I paid cold hard cash for. Thanks, guys! Either you failed to protect me, or your product is as bad as malware on my system. Either way, I wasted all that cash, and I'm wasting a dreadful amount of time I could be spending writing. I have to work out a plan to uninstall my security software: anti-virus, firewall, and malware detector, and make sure it's gone.

I also have to find alternates so my computer isn't left unprotected. Some of what I have now is freeware, and I'm hoping all of what I put in its place will be free. The best tools I have, the ones I've already been able to verify aren't causing me any trouble at all, are all freeware. Then I have to take the time to back up everything crucial, in case of real trouble, remove the old junk, and install the new stuff so I can see what happens. If that doesn't fix the problem, I'll have to seek out the malware some jerk put on my computer.

What really annoys me is the fact this is too important to ignore, yet it means I'm going to lose a whole lot of writing time. Life is short! Time not spent writing is wasted! (Well, mostly.) When I'm done all that, I need to work out the best (that is, the one that is most helpful without requiring a huge investment of time) method for keeping my attention focused where it ought to be, rather than allowing myself to be distracted by every tantalising article in the tech press.

Avoiding distractions is hard when you're a writer. After all, many ideas come from hunting down this or that intriguing lead. So any promising headline might be a great new idea just waiting to burst onto the stage of my consciousness. Then, of course, saving and managing all those great new resources I find takes up time of its own, but how can I use them if I can't find them again? So time and attention are important resources, but allocating them well is not as easy as it sounds.

After reading an article over at The Technium about preserving information in a digital age, I have some thoughts I hope to expand on here. Preserving information is, or ought to be, an issue of great concern to every writer. The thought of losing any of my manuscripts to any of a thousand possible mishaps fills me with dread. Add to that my background as a former genealogist and my interest in emergency preparedness, and the subject is just too interesting to resist.

Tonight, though, since my theme is annoyances, I'm going to end with something that has been bothering me ever since the election. I'm not very political - my opinion is that either party is just the flip side of the other one. They are both part of "the way things work", and since I believe that needs a real overhaul (my only surprise in this whole economic mess has been how long it took to fall apart), I don't think either choice matters that much.

Oh, it matters a great deal to the specific special interests that stand to gain or lose, but to the average person, life is much the same. So I wasn't convinced the election of either candidate spelled out either our doom or our salvation. Barack Obama isn't a bad man, but I couldn't justify spending my own time and attention (big grin) on whether he or John McCain won.

What I can't ignore is the outpouring of hatred since Barack Obama did win. Instead of accepting their loss and getting over it, this time many of those who opposed him seem determined to keep their fight going. I'm referring to the racial incidents since the election, and especially to the news that there have been significantly more threats against Barack Obama's life than against any other President-elect.

Now, if you oppose the policies he intends to follow, and can make a rational statement of your opposition on those grounds, I may be bored, but I'll at least contend you have a right to your opinions. Even that, of course, is no justification for threatening someone's life. But in this case, it seems the problem is simply the colour of his skin.

Haven't we grown up a bit more than that? Aren't we smarter than that? Some of us are, and I'd hoped most of us were, but it appears that isn't the case. There seem to be people out there who want to kill a man for no better reason than the fact his skin is darker than theirs. Anyone who even has a stray thought along those lines ought to be ashamed of themselves. I know I'm ashamed of my fellow humans.

Even considering killing anyone for any reason is a pretty drastic thing to do. Doing so for no better reason than their outward appearance would be pathetic if it weren't so frightening that so many people seem inclined to do so. So I sit here, sick at heart, horrified at what could happen if just one idiot gets lucky. I'd like to think, if you're reading my blog, that you share my feelings. If so, I hope you'll say a prayer for Barack Obama and for his family, that they will all stay safe and unharmed. And once he is inaugurated, I hope you'll support President Obama. He's going to be facing enough difficulties without that kind of hatred to deal with. No matter which side you're on when it comes to his policies, he doesn't deserve that.

Thoughts On Today's Election

I gladly celebrate the fact that it seems at least most Americans have finally figured out a person's skin colour has nothing to do with their fitness to be President - but I do not and will not celebrate the fact that any President has any particular colour of skin, no matter how many or how few of like colour came before him.

That is a minor point, but a very important one: until we have all learned that skin colour matters only for a physical description, we still have a long way to go. It is also a point far too many people, even those in the media who are supposed to know better, seem incapable of appreciating.

I sincerely hope that those most in need of learning that lesson, the idiotic white supremacists who believe just because a man has darker skin they are obligated to hate him, and seek to harm him, will either grow up and realise just how full of crap they really are (I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen), or else die of apoplexy when they see the election results, and leave the rest of us alone. They are much worse than the more common idiots who vote on the basis of skin colour, or gender, or any other totally irrelevant issue. They are filled with hate, which is far harder to combat than simple stupidity.

Personally, I didn't really support either candidate, not because of superficial issues, but because I believe the political machinery we have in place is not capable of producing any candidate who will offer real change. They all offer only one side or the other of the tarnished coin we've had all along.

However, despite my lack of personal enthusiasm, President Obama has been elected President. He has as much right to the office as any other man. If you disagree with him, write editorials, campaign for his defeat in the next election on any rational grounds you choose, and I will still respect you. Drag his race into it, and you will lose my respect. So much as suggest it might be reasonable to attack him for such an absurd reason, you prove yourself no better than Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, Goebbels, Goring, Eichmann, or any other rabid, monstrous Nazi.

I'm sure my regular readers (if any of you are left out there) don't need to be told any of this. I wish there was no reason to write it. But, considering the recent arrest of a couple of young idiots who know nothing better than hatred, I think it is important to stand up publicly for what's important. Even those who don't think President Obama will have the ability to usher in some new Golden Age should still be willing to stand up, speak out, and make one thing plain. He may be no better than the general run of Presidents, but he is no worse, either. He is a man, with all the rights any man has, including the right to live in peace.

Ethics In the Association of Professional Genealogists: Image or Reality? (Updated 26 July)

I have updated this post to discuss recent developments, indicating editing changes in blue text. Some of my changes attempt to address distortions in the arguments which are attributed to me. Roughly 1:00 am 26 July Addition roughly 3:00 pm 26 July

Until I resigned in protest earlier this year, I was a member of the Association of Professional Genealogists, and until last November worked as a professional genealogist. When I first joined the association, I believed the ideals they promoted, and was proud to be a member. In fact I think at that time the organisation made a real effort to live up to those ideals.

Over time, I noticed a shift in attitudes, as members' concerns about earning a good enough living became more prominent, and as some members allowed their ambitions of being accepted by academia to overwhelm other ideas. Several specific incidents have solidified my opinion that the APG's vaunted ethics are nothing but a sham.

The first incident began when a member posted a rambling, apparently drunken message to the APG list. In it, he made a number of ridiculous statements about prominent genealogists. No intelligent person believed these statements then, and I don't believe them today. He claimed someone else sent it in his name, but someone was offended enough to file a formal complaint, and word quietly filtered around that he'd been disciplined.

Given the problems inherent in validating electronic evidence, problems that are also of significance to genealogists, I was troubled by the way this was handled, for reasons I explained in a post to the mailing list archived here . In response, very indirectly, I was given to understand there was other evidence, but refused permission to quote anyone.

Due to the excessive secrecy, I was uncomfortable with the notion of a member being punished for nothing more than insulting a few prominent members of APG. I also felt, for an organisation that claims to encourage learning important skills, to allow a post which raised valid questions in light of the knowledge I had to remain unanswered was bad policy. However, I dismissed these concerns, and tried to remain a loyal member.

Not long after, another post casually mentioned the first issue of the NGSQ had advocated eugenics, the 'science' that claimed those with 'inferior' genes should be 'eliminated' from the gene pool, through forced sterilisation or other means. Since the eugenics movement used and perverted genealogy, often fabricating information to match their theories, and since the Nazis had also used genealogical information to identify "hidden" Jews, this information appalled me.

I quickly posted, expressing my hope that those who espoused such repulsive "ideals" were no longer being honoured by us today. In response, I was attacked, and not a single person supported me. Over time, as I considered the longstanding, although seldom discussed, links between genealogy and eugenics, and the fact that many modern genealogists work with DNA and also do research for medical purposes, this troubled me more and more. Any individual's failure to speak out to support me does not suggest they support eugenics. However, the overall lack of support, on a list that flooded my mailbox the instant the subject of our income and prestige was raised, is troubling.

Although I consider eugenics to be one of the most evil beliefs mankind has ever developed, I limited my concerns to the APG list since I still trusted the overall ethics of the organisation. I did not, at any time, advocate attempting to alter history or destroy records. I did suggest we should no longer honour people who advocated such repulsive and harmful ideas, and that we should add a provision to the Code of Ethics explicitly forbidding ethical genealogists from being involved in or with eugenics in any form.

Since then, as I detail below, my trust in the ethics of the APG as an organisation has been eroded. As my confidence in the organisation waned, my concern over the potential for future abuse in this area grew. And as I attempt to think about this clearheadedly, one question haunts me. Since my opponents claim it is an unimportant issue, and it is an issue which does concern some segment of the public, why not add a provision to the Code of Ethics repudiating eugenics?

The real change came when someone started a thread asking how many of us earned an adequate income. Those who were unhappy with what they were able to charge began seeking ways to increase their rates. Reasonable enough, until a certain posting. Before I mention this posting, I must admit something: I once posted a suggestion that genealogists seek to have access to records limited to identified professionals.

My reasons for this, as stated in my post, were the threats of records closures; I felt this might be the only way to preserve access at all. Since then, I've decided I was wrong, but it would have been reasonable for someone to make a suggestion reluctantly, as the best way of keeping records open on a limited basis. However, if you follow the (long) discussion that began here and quickly degenerated, you will see that some members seem to have been suggesting licensing and limited access to records as a way of increasing their own income and, incidentally, prestige.

That was the moment I was forced to make a choice, and was forced to realise the APG no longer had the best interests of genealogy in mind. They failed to recognise the same economic pressures that forced the consolidation of so many other businesses and industries. They ignored the impact of Ancestry, which, by making so many lookups easy for anyone, reduced income from such minor projects for many researchers, and when many of their members ended up in trouble, all many of them could think of was protecting their own interest, even at the expense of non-"professional" genealogists.

I refrained from speaking out publicly at the time, despite moral qualms that I should do so, since there are still many honest, decent members of the APG. I hoped to resolve the problems from within, somehow. Not long after, there was a slight amount of publicity because of someone who seems to have felt the same arrogance and elitism that I noted.

Writers have a rule of thumb: if you show a work to one person, and they criticise something, you are still free to believe they just don't understand. But, when you show it to a second person, and they make the same point, you just don't understand. Their response? They mocked Lee, saying the fact that she gave up just proved she didn't have what it took. What they really proved is that they refused to understand their own growing arrogance.

I still stayed quiet, however, although I abandoned active research not long after. I could no longer stomach the profession I had once loved. But I had friends on that list, and people I respected. I stopped taking an active part in the list, although I read the messages for any information I might be able to use in my own research. Then something more happened, which forced me to think again.

I will not link to these postings, since doing so would violate the privacy of an innocent individual, but will provide links to any posts that have not been removed to legitimate members of the press who inquire, upon written assurance the links will not be made public, or the details of innocent individuals released.

In one more example of elitism, listers suddenly began pestering anyone who used a pseudonym. In response, one person posted that she wished to remain private, and so was leaving the list, in order to respect their wishes. Instead of honouring that, one member of the APG responded by posting her name and a link to her personal web page with more information about her and her family, noting how "easy" it was to find.

To me, this was cyberbullying. Not only that, it played right into the hands of those who believe genealogists will dig up your personal information even if you want it kept private. Yet, when I posted insisting the APG take action, I was told it was "policy" to only act if an individual filed a formal complaint. Of course, any one of them could have filed such a complaint, but they chose not to, and I refused to do their dirty work for them.

The only reason I can see for the reluctance to punish this member, as the drunken member was punished, even though his offence only harmed his own reputation and hers reflected on everyone, is the simple fact she is a longtime member of the APG with powerful and influential friends. At this time, when I was exposing the rotten underbelly of their policies, the APG suddenly implemented a new feature of their web site - private forums.

Secrecy, of course, is a great way to hide what you're doing. No matter how many good reasons they may come up with for having such forums, the timing suggests hiding was at least part of the reason for having them. I remained a member of the APG, so I e-mailed my intention to resign and instructed them to take my name off the membership list, rather than be associated with this.

Unable to resolve these concerns, I "threatened" to go public with them. In reality, I made it plain I was hugely reluctant to do so, and would prefer a meaningful dialogue that might resolve the problems without harm to anyone's reputation. Some members answered; I replied to them, but only two even acknowledged my answers. In fairness, I have noticed a number of e-mails to and from my accounts have not been delivered, and have heard similar stories from others, so I can't say who received them.

I can say that few of the people who answered were those who might be able to do anything, and no one in a position to act entered into anything like a real discussion of these concerns. I tried to salve my conscience that I had done what I could. I realised that the last incident was, in a way, a 'litmus test' for me, which is why I reacted so strongly. If the APG had acted honestly against this member, I might have gone on believing the organisation was, on the whole, ethical.

Yet they didn't act. There are still decent people, people I respect very much, who are members, so I didn't act either. One other reaction increased my concern, though. Most people assumed I had some personal issue to complain about. I was insulted a few times by members, one member who did some research on my family in another area made a mistake, and I never said a word about those things.

Why didn't I pursue my personal "issues"? Simply because they were personal, too petty to make a fuss about. People make mistakes, say something thoughtless, and none of that is worth a lot of time and trouble. Yet, when they learned my concerns were larger, and not personal, most people couldn't understand why I made a fuss. The fact they felt a little lost money or an insult were more important than issues that should concern everyone only deepened my concerns about the culture of the APG, and the moral compass its leaders were providing.

Today, something happened that forced me to revisit all this, and I am finally speaking out. Today, an APG member posted the full text of an article in the Providence Journal (I am not linking to the post, out of respect for the Journal's rights) and specifically noted they were doing so to circumvent the Journal's requirement that every reader register (at no charge).

In other words, this was a deliberate act! They posted a copyrighted article deliberately, and deprived the newspaper of readership information which would be of commercial value to them. Now, I don't like registering either; I always wonder how much more spam I'll get. But this is a member of an organisation that makes a big issue of copyright, and members are quick enough to complain if their Copyrights are infringed. I am not a copyright attorney, but it seems plain to me this member violated Federal law, despite an ethical pledge that requires members to obey the law, and specifically Copyright law.

So I e-mailed the administration, including the offending message with full headers, the only evidence I had, or would be likely to have. Despite that, they e-mailed me in return to say they would only act if I filed an official complaint. I did so, but this forced me to consider: why have such a policy, and why wouldn't one of the officers file a complaint themselves?

Well, such a process is inconvenient, it takes time many people don't have, and it can be intimidating to some people. In other words, their ethics policies have been set up to insulate their members from as many criticisms as possible. Which finally convinced me, when members are working in areas 'sensitive' to the issue and the organisation is reluctant to publicly disavow eugenics, when members may still be working in secret on their private forum to plan ways to limit records access to "licensed" genealogists, meaning you won't be able to learn about your own family without paying through the nose for it, and when members openly violate the Copyright laws - I had no choice but to expose the APG for what it is.

I now understand how whistleblowers feel, and how difficult it is. Should I have spoken out sooner? Probably. I will never know how much harm has been done by my silence, while my speaking out now has ensured it is unlikely anyone who is a member of the APG will ever speak to me again. In fairness, while many who have contacted me have not agreed with me on every point, and some have disagreed with me on most or all of the points I made, the responses I have received have been far less negative than I feared they would be. But I sincerely believe that the APG has become corrupted, that its leadership, in the absence of real ways to advance the field of genealogy, has resorted to secrecy lest their image be tarnished, and that the only way to clean up the mess is to dissolve the APG completely, lest consumers believe their prattle about "high ethical standards".

Since I have no connection with the Providence Journal and didn't write the article in question, why do I care so much? Again, it isn't really personal, although I do have a slight personal interest in this one. But I also care about all my fellow writers - when a member of an organisation that makes so much noise about their "ethics" publicly ignores copyright laws, that can only encourage those who don't even understand the law to think it is okay. In other words, every writer has suffered an increased chance their work will be stolen because of that message. And since the APG administration didn't think that was serious enough to act against on their own, forcing me to file a formal complaint before they would even consider doing anything, it is past time I spoke up!

Today, the member in question made another posting to the list, reposting the article with permission from the Providence Journal. They included a message stating their omission of Copyright permission yesterday had been "inadvertent". While it does not technically say this in so many words, the message is carefully crafted to avoid accepting any real blame, by implying they had sought permission and just somehow forgot to mention it.

Aside from the fact I have trouble believing anyone would go to the trouble of obtaining permission to republish an article, and then forget to mention it (which the new post doesn't quite say, anyway), the original post gave as a reason for the full posting the fact that "viewing the Providence Journal requires readers to login". Again, this was deliberate! After the fact, when I complained, the person in question presumably contacted the Providence Journal, worked something out with them, and obtained permission to cover themselves legally.

Now, if the member had posted something like "I did wrong. I tried to steal Copyrighted work, even though copyright law is specifically mentioned in our Code of Ethics, and has been discussed on this list many times. I'm sorry, it was a crime, and I've already contacted the copyright owner and settled the matter with them" I would stick to the APG's response to this. In any case, they should have reacted faster and more forcefully.

But, what the member did instead was craft a post that left the real facts clouded, that could easily create the impression they had permission all along. Since that is only my judgment, judge for yourself. That message, to me, is the perfect triumph of image over truth. Which is exactly what I've said here: the APG has changed, and their ethics are image, not truth. It reads, to me, like something written by the kind of lawyer who originally studied the law in order to find out how to bend it to their will. No statement is technically false, but the overall impression is far from the truth as I see it.

And, if this little attempt to preserve one member's image succeeds, it will have exactly the effect I feared in the first place: those inclined to violate copyrights will think it's easy enough to wiggle off the hook. Writers everywhere should be outraged, and truly ethical genealogists should be outraged as well.

What Caused the Virginia Tech Shooting?

Variations of this question have been asked in the media ever since the news broke, yet not once have they considered the one obvious cause. Before I point out the Emperor's shocking and in this case pornographic nudity, let me briefly dispose of some of the more idiotic aspects of what some segments of the media have suggested. First. they insist on looking for his "reason" as if they're going to find some answer that makes sense to everyone.

I hope you can agree that any "reason" for such a massacre will, by definition, not make sense. If something like that can make sense to you, you scare me. It's that simple. There are no reasons for something like that. I understand those who must evaluate others' potential for such violence need to learn all they can, but why would the rest of us even want to understand something so shocking, so alien to the rest of us (I hope).

It offends me suggestions have been made this happened either because of his race or nationality, or because of hints he may have been diagnosed with autism. None of those have anything to do with it. Blaming one individual's actions on any group is a terrible and a foolish idea. Yet some insist on pointing to incidental characteristics to provide an "explanation".

If such comments have merit, why, when "normal" white Americans commit such crimes, isn't it suggested it was because they were a normal white American? Such red herrings are dragged out whenever possible simply because bigotry is always seeking excuses to justify itself. It is time everyone, and especially those in the media, learned that lesson, stopped adding fuel to the fires of bigotry, and tried sticking to relevant facts instead.

While less repulsive, the suggestion that he was bullied has no more merit. Many people are bullied, some much worse than anything hinted at in this case, and yet never decide to randomly shoot as many people as they can. For the ultimate proof, look at one of the victims, Liviu Librescu. This man, a Holocaust survivor, endured tragedies and terrors so great, just contemplating his childhood is enough to wake nightmares.

Yet, with such a background, what was his choice? To, instead of killing the innocent, sacrifice his own life to protect as many as he could. If his experiences did not drive him to commit mass murder, then his example should forever silence the whining of those who say "you drove me to it" as they slaughter random victims and those whose "offences" were much less than murder.

Why did the shooter do it? Although many of those who have done the same thing before probably had similar motives, he was extremely open about it. He sent a package containing his "reasons" to NBC. He wanted people to question what they'd done. He wanted them to feel the guilt for his crimes. And he wanted the media to look for and publicize "his side of the story". He wanted them to promote him as a "martyr".

In other words, he was a spoiled little brat who decided he'd "show everybody", no matter what the cost. He considered those who "celebrated" Hitler's birthday with a massacre to be "martyrs", and he considered that he was one, too. Perhaps the media coverage of the murders at Columbine High helped shape such an arrogant attitude. Certainly, he expected and wanted media coverage himself.

And, what did the media do? They claimed they had no choice, that it was "breaking news", and so they aired his repulsive and obscene rants. They gave him exactly what he wanted. In a sense, they repaid him for providing them with a big story by giving him what he implicitly asked for in return. They may not have driven him to it, but they probably encouraged his attitude, and they certainly rewarded his actions.

Whoever the next shooter is, the media coverage of this story has no doubt encouraged them to continue thinking everyone else is "driving them to it". It has reinforced their belief they will become a "martyr". And it has shown them that, if they want the world to hear "their side", the media will give them just that. Although every individual is responsible for whatever they decide to do, in many ways the media is responsible for encouraging further shootings.

What could they have done differently? They could have covered "breaking news" by ignoring the whining self-proclaimed martyr who caused so much pain and loss, and focusing attention on those who deserve it instead. Yes, most if not all of you have heard of Liviu Librescu, but why haven't you heard more about him than about the shooter? His example, of decency and self-sacrifice in the face of hatred and tragedy, is one worth paying attention to.

Courage or Cowardice?

How should a writer respond to outrages such as the one I wrote about below? I don't ask this question in order to put anyone else on the spot. It is my belief each of us must make the best of our lives in our own fashion. I don't know anyone else's heart, or the deeds they do in secret. So if you've settled this question to your own satisfaction, I have no right to say your answer is the wrong one.

Even if you pursue a different course than I believe is wise, you may be right and I may be wrong, or each of us may be, in different ways, right. You may do more to make the world a better place than I ever manage to do. I ask the question because it is one I wrestle with. I am not satisfied that I have found the best answer.

When I learn of suffering and injustice, should I set aside the writing I'd like to be doing, and write endless articles in the hope someone will take notice? Or, should I learn about these things, absorb them, and then write whatever I am inclined to, trusting that my sensibilities will come through and influence my readers? One way, I am unhappy and it seems that no one ever listens.

The other way seems so inadequate, so selfish, even if there are examples of authors whose fiction has helped to shape the opinions of a society. I understand one of the reasons the media won't cover these stories; most people are tired of hearing about them, worn out with learning of tragedies it seems they can do nothing to prevent. I, too, am tired of hearing about them.

I'd like nothing more than to know that the outrages were ended, there was no need to hear of them or think of them any more. But that isn't the way the world works. So, as a writer, I have to ask myself the question, "What should I do? How can I best help?" Writing is my greatest talent, however limited that talent may be. And those who are weary of thinking about such things are more likely to read my thoughts if they're slipped into a work of fiction.

Yet, as any fiction writer knows, you can't write a thinly disguised tract and have it entertain anyone. Yes, I could churn out a melodrama within a few weeks, complete with sympathetic victims and posturing, horribly evil villains. And no one would want to read it, and even if they did, it would not do justice to the complexity of the subject.

You can't force fiction. I have to write the ideas that come to me. Will the right idea ever arrive? I have no way of knowing. Which way lies courage, and which way cowardice? I will probably continue to do as I have so far, writing fiction, and occasionally howling out in words of grief and rage when I learn of some more unbearable tragedy.

What does that make me? Am I a coward for not confronting these issues head on? Or would I simply be wasting my effort, doing nothing but easing my own conscience? The final decision is mine, I bear the responsibility, but I welcome the opinions of any of my readers who feel they have any answers. And I fear, whatever decision I make, I will never be wholly at peace with it as long as hatred takes its awful toll on the innocent.

When Will We Learn?

I had hoped to be writing a Marieke story tonight. I enjoy writing, and it's what I prefer to do. But sometimes you need to set aside what you want to do in favour of what you need to do. I read a post over at Kim Stagliano's blog that really upset me, and I believe the issue needs wider publicity.

Please, go over there to read the post. I'm sorry if you're busy and were hoping for a quick, fun read, but this is important. You can come back here when you're done.

A lot of the information you just read shocked and upset me, but one item stood out. It stood out because it was the only one that specifically mentioned life expectancy. It seems that in North Korea, autistic children are sent off to "a remote institution where their life expectancy is less than 2 years". Many of them starve to death.

How is this any different than the groups singled out in Nazi Germany to be sent to concentration camps where they died, often of starvation? Why haven't we heard any of this from the media? Oh, I forgot, they were busy covering the really important stories, like the fate of Anna Nicole Smith's dead body. In fairness to the media, though, they cover what we want to know about.

It seems that, as a society, we are more interested in the fate of one dead woman's body than the fate of thousands, perhaps millions, of living, helpless children. Or at least that's what the media thinks. I hope most of my readers disagree. I hope most of them are wondering why the American government is silent about this issue.

Why can the United States, which tosses billions of dollars around the world, not do more to help those countries who sincerely want to do more but don't have the funds to do it? Why don't we speak out against the governments that just want to kill helpless children? How many more countries is this happening in? Is it just North Korea, or are there other regimes willing to get rid of the "inconvenient"?

Why haven't we, as a society, learned anything from history? When will we learn? How many millions will die before we do learn? And how can we say, "We didn't know", when in fact the lessons of history have told us enough that we should know? Killing any group of human beings is never acceptable! That isn't such a long lesson, or such a difficult one, so why is it so often ignored? If you don't have time now, come back later to visit geistweg † genocide, a blog about this very subject, one that potentially threatens every human being on earth.

I hope every one of you who reads my post will do what you feel that you can. It isn't my place to tell you what you are able to do, but I can make a few suggestions. Write about this on your own blog, contact the press to ask why they aren't covering it, write to your Senator and Representative to complain that the United States isn't doing more. Please... for the sake of all those helpless children who can't even speak for themselves and are starving to death in North Korea and perhaps elsewhere as I type this.

Never Again!

Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day set aside to remember the millions of innocent individuals who died in the Holocaust. They were singled out by a policy directed by mindless hatred, and exterminated with an enthusiasm that can only be described as maniacal. The Nazis believed that by wiping out Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the disabled they would be somehow "purifying the race".

Perhaps the ultimate testimony to the tragic absurdity of the "science" which convinced them of this is the fact that, if those rules had been followed impartially, Adolf Hitler himself would have been classified as a Jew and deported to a camp. When the war was over, and the world was forced to confront the things they had ignored for so long, and see the consequences of ignorance, bigotry, and hatred, their response was "Never Again!".

Has this promise been kept? Look around you. In Cambodia, in the lands that were Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, in Darfur, and in so many other places I cannot bear to name them all, masses of human beings have been massacred for no better reason than the Nazis offered, and the world watched and did nothing. The Nazis sought to wipe out all trace of disabilities we now test pregnant mothers for, so their children can be aborted, denying them any chance to live at all. And it is nice and 'sanitary'; we don't need to confront the reality. "Fetuses", not babies, just as it was "the Final Solution", not mass murder. Anti-Semitism is on the rise, and has been for years, and few people speak out against it. There are even attempts to deny the Holocaust ever happened.

When you reflect on this day, know one thing for certain: it happened. In Bad Arolsen, in Germany, there is a massive archive with tons of papers, all original, and all proving, in the murderers' own hands, what the Nazis were guilty of. On millions of bookshelves, there is a book, the last remnant of a beautiful, talented girl who describes much of what was happening in her diary, which was saved when she was taken away to be killed. Her records are found in the archive in Bad Arolsen. The evidence is consistent, each piece confirms the others.

It happened. The only reason for denying that it happened is the wish to stir up the same kind of vicious, lying, murderous hatred that fueled the greatest tragedy the world has known to date. If you doubt, read the books, look at the pictures, view the films the Nazis themselves took. Some who deny the reality of what happened try to make excuses; yes, many died, but that was just due to disease the Germans were unable to control. They lie! The records in Bad Arolsen, records kept by the Nazis themselves, list victim after victim, and after their name, the notation "Executed".

Those who did die of disease did so because they were gathered together in unsanitary conditions, malnourished, and waiting to be executed with the others. Disease may have done the Nazis' work for them in some cases, but it can't spare them the blame for the outcome. If you don't already know, read about what happened. Research it. Learn all you can about it. And, when you are so sick that you understand "Never Again" may be the most important pledge the human race has ever made, speak out against hatred, against bigotry, against murder, wherever you find it, whatever interests try to excuse it.

The Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust; I have no intention and no desire to deny that. But other groups were singled out, and if any group may be singled out, all groups live in danger. "Never Again" will be a hollow lie until every time an American spooking at shadows demands that all Moslems be killed, we all cry out in protest, Jew, Moslem, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or anything else. It will be meaningless until we refuse to accept the singling out of any group to be 'cleansed', to be 'reduced', to be attacked in any way whatsoever.

I can think of no finer memorial to all the victims of the Holocaust, nor any so well suited to the occasion, as a society that takes "Never Again!" as the single most important thing we can guarantee our descendants. It is more important than a healthy planet, more important than a thriving economy, more important than any other type of freedom. Until all groups can feel sure that they are free to live, how can they enjoy any of these other things?

If you agree with my message, and believe it is as important as I do, feel free to link to it, or even to copy it. I am the rightful Copyright owner, but I give you permission to do so, with a single restriction. Lest some hateful group that opposes this ideal think of a way to twist my words, you may only copy this post if you copy it and reproduce it in its entirety. If you wish, you may highlight certain passages differently than I have done, so long as you leave my words unchanged, and you may omit any hyperlinks I have included. With that restriction, I encourage you to spread this post as far and wide as you are able.